Yeah and they did not actually guarentee or out right say that they planned on having changes out this week for sure. They said it COULD be as early as this week. Of course though I do think that they probably hope to have the changes out this week. I admit I hope they have them out today or tomorrow since I am eager to test! Though I do agree with Klomp and hope that they have made further changes based on further playerfeedback based off the updated notes.
-
Hail Guest! We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
-
Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
-
Hail Guest!, Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
-
Hail Guest! Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!
Yeah I agree they were way to vague on how exactly this all will work. We need to have an idea of how this will all work if we actually want to test it effectively!
Patience has a bad history in this game, and on these boards.
It's usually called for when something horrendous is about to happen, or something good is about to not happen. And its practice is rarely of any value on these boards.
Having said that, I do not think this is one of those times when something horrendous is about to happen.
We talked them into a much better stance on stamina loss/blocking stamina damage. I think we can talk them into a better position in the rest of it.
And I see the stuff not being up on TC yet as a good sign. One bad sign, though, was that the new notes didn't say "this stuff isn't on TC yet," thus creating the reasonable expectation that it was.
-Galen's player
To restate my main arguments/suggestions regarding this Publish:
-Galen's player
- Much improved from last version, especially with regard to how Stamina damage seems to be taken down to current levels, and non-meddable armor blocks it on that basis.
- The inherent LMC thing adds too much complexity to a system already sufficiently complex. Remember that, under current system, sure there's a lot of properties to consider, but at least we just have only to add stuff together. This new system requires slightly more complex calculations that may well for some of us be the straw on the back of the over-burdened camel.
- 95 DCI? No. (Though I admit I don't really understand the HLD change and might be missing something, but 95 DCI just feels really wrong. Really wrong.)
- 75 cap in all resists? No. Between this and #3 that pushes the direction too far in the way of non-meddable armor, a monster push on a pendulum that required only a light push. If you take out the inherent LMC then you don't need these 2 things to re-re-re-balance non-meddable armor. Remember to start your balancing from where we are currently and err on the side of caution. An additional resist cap should be limited to physical damage only, and other proposals have been advanced in this thread that are superior to 95 DCI and 75 in all resists. (My favorite: Plate-only PvM damage absorption so we won't all end up riding swamp dragons anymore.)
- Oh, and leave Force of Nature off of Klomp's war mace. An elf special move shouldn't be on a human weapon, and it's not like Force of Nature on the war mace has a huge following, because currently it isn't there at all. (It's not like Feint on a Leafblade where it doesn't belong, but it's too late to re-cork the bottle.) Enough of this stuff all together can be rather spell-breaking and immersion is one of the most-important things about UO that few will directly address. Stuff matching a certain fantasy logic is important. Immersion is more important to more people than you think and stuff matching a certain fantasy logic is important to immersion. I will gladly accept with minimal grumbling that Feint's going to remain on the Leafblade if it means leaving Force of Nature off the war mace.
-Galen's player
Last edited:
Most people can add. It's pretty easy to see the 5 lmc mod on an item and then figure out you get a bonus of 3 for leather or w/e it is.
As far as DCI, maybe I mispoke. I know the change was a result of the HLD, but I assumed the bonus applied to over capping. Can't say I'm in favor of 95 DCI as a max cap either, if that's the case. Instead I wonder if they could have just fixed overcapping, IDK.
As far as specials, I don't care what weapons they put them on. They want to put poison on a club? Ok, if I go with a DP dexer, I'll be using a club.
Not a big deal.
Either way they're trying to figure out a way to make other crafting skills useful again other than reforging/imbuing without making that obsolete or skewing the whole thing.
Going to be pretty hard to do. I wish them luck.
Last edited:
Actually Curse was changed Pub 18 around 2007 but thanks for making my point even stronger.
You need an explanation of how the Curse spell works?
1) Bypasses my resists and drops them all to 60. Even though I am running 120 Resisting Spells
2) Drops my stats a huge % even though I am running 120 Resisting Spells. If you havent noticed, stats are critical to the warrior in every way. They equal swingspeed and healing time.
3) Is only 4th level so casts in no time and can be chained
4) Lasts for over 2 minutes if not removed. How about you factor the huge % of CONSISTENT extra Curse spell damage done over the full 2 minutes into your bs damage equations?
5) Forces me to run 120 Resisting Spells for no other reason then the greater stat loss would be crippling otherwise. A warrior has to invest a precious 120 skill points for almost no other reason then to help deflect a chainable 4th level spell that lasts for 2 minutes. Yet the mage does not have to invest 1 skill point in an equal and balancing skill like Parry or Wrestling because of the pathetic sc mage weapon. Sounds logical to me lol.
Thanks for incorrectly mentioning that the spell has not been touched in 15 years though.
The basic 64 Mage spells are curiously never touched. Warriors have EVERY dimension of their template tweaked/nerfed/revamped on a regular basis yet mages always have their untouched & reliable 64 spells. Never any worries about changing playstyle or tactics with those 64 spells.
If you go to Yew gate on Atlantic today you will see 3/4 of the mages there doing nothing other then curse/explo/fs/fs/fs. Maybe throw in a fireball for the kill shot if they are feeling crazy.
And they all cast protection first chance they get so please start factoring that into your bs damage output equations.
Any reason we cant revamp the entire book of 64 spells?
Doesnt everyone want a more varied and intersting playstyle?
In his own words Bleak has described this current warrior nerf/revamp as a means to make the game "more interesting"
It is interesting that he is only trying to make it more interesting for us warriors.
Curse is a stupid spell, it's the reason I never bother making a PvP suit 70's and only strive to get 60's. I can't do anything about it and have to save my precious apples for things like mortal. 120 resist for hardly a meaningful return but try running it without and seeing what gives. HLD can be negated as could HLA if one wanted to but curse, please. Nothing a dexxer has can compete with the dramatic one sided gain this spell gives.
The chance to be hit (by an equal skilled combatant, 100-vs-100, at 0 HCI) for 45 DCI and 95 DCI is 34.5% and 25.6% respectively. This is not a drastic change. The change to the DCI cap goes hand-in-hand with the changes to HLD. The changes make HLD effective against any opponent (regardless of their DCI). It may be easier to think of DCI as a number, not a percentile.
- Current DCI/HLD Behavior. Since DCI is capped at 45 effectiveness (regarding hit probabilities you can do no better, even if you have greater than 45 DCI). HLD applies -25 DCI to the target. You can maintain the effectiveness of 45 DCI, even under HLD, if you have 70 DCI on your gear (70-25=45). If you run 70 DCI, you can ignore the affect of HLD.
- Proposed DCI/HLD Behavior. DCI is capped at 95. HLD reduuces the targets DCI by 55% of its value. Another way to view this is that the target's DCI is now 45% of its original value (1-0.55=0.45). By making it a percentage decrease to the target's DCI, HLD now effects all targets. There is no way to ignore it. The increased DCI cap maintains the value of having high DCI, while the change to HLD makes it always useful.
Stayin Alive,
BG
Berethrain
I really enjoyed reading your view.
Personally, I'm not a fan of hidden mods because new and or returning players will not have the hidden information immediately accessible to them. I agree other players will get them up to speed as some of us know how helpful UO players can be.
Instead of a hidden mod I like the idea of a visible mod that is specifically for metal and a visible mod specifically for bone, maybe only attainable via enhancing. I guess one could argue Leather does not have a visable indication about being medable... dang
Man that is a spiral effect.....
I guess we could remove "mage armor" property for imbuing, that would give leather a property that metal, bone and wood armor would not have. That is interesting. Leave the mage armor property on artifacts only, this could create a need for certain artifacts... in fact make all artifacts medable that could bring back some of the need for artifacts.
Wow that could upset a lot of people.
Please don't flame strike me, I'm just provoking thought
Spell Breaker
I really enjoyed reading your view.
Personally, I'm not a fan of hidden mods because new and or returning players will not have the hidden information immediately accessible to them. I agree other players will get them up to speed as some of us know how helpful UO players can be.
Instead of a hidden mod I like the idea of a visible mod that is specifically for metal and a visible mod specifically for bone, maybe only attainable via enhancing. I guess one could argue Leather does not have a visable indication about being medable... dang
Man that is a spiral effect.....
I guess we could remove "mage armor" property for imbuing, that would give leather a property that metal, bone and wood armor would not have. That is interesting. Leave the mage armor property on artifacts only, this could create a need for certain artifacts... in fact make all artifacts medable that could bring back some of the need for artifacts.
Wow that could upset a lot of people.Please don't flame strike me, I'm just provoking thought
Spell Breaker
Last edited:
As someone who remembers the days before DCI was capped, I really have to beg to differ that there's little substantive difference between 45 and 95. Regardless of what the math says, and even going by that a 9 point difference is still to me rather substantial in present context, there's nothing quite like being more or less totally unable to hit your opponent. "I don't even have parry, u suk!" someone said to me once. He did not note that with the amount of DCI he had, parry basically was not necessary. I've been accused of having Parry, which I don't, presumably because even under current systems DCI is just that powerful. And remember that the h in HLD stands for hit. You have to hit your opponent first for this to matter at all.
If the idea is to account for the new HLD changes then why not provide more than one means to get to the 95% cap?
Why not increase the cap for everyone and make it easier to get to using metal armor, instead of giving it only to metal armor?
(If there's another means to get there I totally missed it.)
Or, better yet, why not leave DCI, and HLD, alone for now, given that they are already providing quite respectable incentives to wear metal armor?
-Galen's player
I just want to thank all the die hards out there who still have the determination and interest to test and make notes and suggestions, and, to do that in a fashion that encourages DEV interaction. Love you guys, if there is going to be a reason for me to come back to this community full-time you are it.
I also want to express enormous gratitude to a DEV team that is obviously very willing to make themselves available, and to listen to feedback, almost however it is expressed, to ask questions to refine understanding of the feedback, and to include a new sense of understanding into your intended changes. Love you guys, if there is going to be a reason for me to come back to this game full-time, you are it.
I just resubbed an account, with the original intend of moth-balling a house. Now, maybe, it will be more for consolidating that house in preparation to move the resources to a more populated server. It looks like playing with large numbers of people may be about to become fun again.
Ninja's -
Is there a chance we will be disrupted when casting animal form? Can the disruption if hit while casting animal form be countered by using protection?
Spell Breaker
Is there a chance we will be disrupted when casting animal form? Can the disruption if hit while casting animal form be countered by using protection?
Spell Breaker
You know what I would like to see!
Free to Play
Hear me out first! UO would recaputre retired players and entice new players. All free to play accounts can not place a house. To place a house its a 9$ month account upgrade. It gets better! You ccould also place a second house for a 3$ month account upgrade! And we dont stop there.... You can place as many houses as you like on as many shards as you like - 3$ a month per house after the first house (no house cap / no shard cap)
As a bonus for players that have 10 houses on one account will be giving the opportunity to lease the shard transfer house teleporter tile. Tile holds 3 transfers max per month and recharges monthly. Siege and Mugen players can transfer between themselves.
and I'd offer more chargers for accounts with 20, 25 and 30 houses....
I can dream a little
Spell Breaker
Last edited:
You do know that the reason it only does 35 in pvp, is because it's capped right?
Do you remember Armor Ignore Before it was capped at 35 ? Or were you not playing before AI became capped at 35?
I'd assume you're a thrower or an archer, I mean lets face it, Who else is going to use a weapon that's slow enough to do "A lot" more than 35 damage with an Armor ignore for pvp?
Secondly, Curse reduces your elemental resistances to 60... it doesn't completely "ignore" resistances.
I would think someone who posts about pvp a lot would know what they're talking about.
Last edited:
There is only one way to get to the 95 DCI cap, "Get More DCI", so it is difficult to understand what you are asking here. You can still get DCI from all of the current means (artifacts, jewelry, weapon properties, etc), this is not changing. Since it is currently possible to get 70 DCI, it will still be possible to get 70 DCI after the publish without using armor refinements (no math needed here). Getting to the cap may require a little bit of work/luck though. There are multiple means of obtaining the armor refinements, if that is what you are implying.
The DCI cap is increased for everyone, it is not tied to any type of armor. The armor refinements are for non-medable armors, not just metal, and are meant to make it easier to get to the DCI cap (with some trade-off).
Stayin Alive,
BG
I think you misunderstood something, well if I got it right ,the armor refinements only apply to non-meddable armor and will provide a boost to DCI cap up to 95. The DCI cap isnt boosted to 95 for everyone, it is only to those who will wear non-meddable armor with refinements, so its far to be available to everyone!
Last edited:
Well said.
The way I read the dci change is that quite simply HLD will again have a small chance to be a factor as intended.
Here are the updated Publish Notes:
http://uo.com/article/Updated-Publish-81-Notes
Relevant excerpt One:
OK, so the plain intent of the previous passage is that the new Refinement mcehanic applies to non-medable armor, and only non-medable armor.
Relevant excerpt Two:
That is the only reference I personally see to raising the DCI cap. I take "Max DCI" to mean DCI cap, and fail to see what if any other meaning it could have.
Based upon these passages, only those who wear non-medable armor will see their Max DCI, or DCI Cap, increased to 95. The clear implication to me is that the cap for those who wear medable armor remains at 45.
People go to 70 now, this is true. However, it is to nullify the impact of Hit Lower Defense, and ensure people remain at 45 even after HLD lowers it.
I understand that HLD is changing, but think about it. If my cap remains at 45, and someone hits me with HLD, I am now down to, what, 20? 22? And that's assuming I had no penalties, from say Divine Fury, that put me lower at the time I got hit.
The original Publish Notes are here:
http://uo.com/article/Publish-810-Comes-TC1
I see nothing in there about changing the DCI cap for anyone (with one exception, see below), and I see nothing indeed about Phase 2 of the armor revamp at all. The DCI cap stuff plainly is a feature of Phase 2 of the armor revamp.
The only reference in the original Publish Notes to an increased DCI cap is here:
Seen in light of Phase 2, however, it's plain that the 95 applies only to those wearing non-medable armor, not to everyone. Note that the language still references the existence of a cap of 45, implying rather plainly that that cap still exists for someone.
And look, there's my answer! With a 45 Cap, which I plainly will still have, I go down to 20 once I'm hit with HLD.
So please tell me what I'm missing, tell me where the overall DCI cap is increasing for everyone, not just those who wear non-medable armor that's been treated using the new Refinement mechanic.
-Galen's player
Last edited:
Uhh, that was my point bud.
I am sorry I didnt feel the need to map it out for everyone.
An AI on another player (call it capped or whatever makes you feel good) does a max of 35 to someone wearing a standard 60-70 resist suit.
Hit that same person in a suit with 0 resists and you will do ALOT more then 35 points of damage. The fact that the devs made most big 2 handers useless is not the point here.
The argument in question was concerning pvp mechanics so the fact that a pvm ignore is truly an ignore is irrelavant and silly semantics. I was merely pointing out the flaw in Logrus' statement about damage output and bypassing resists.
See my post. The increased DCI cap only applies to non-medable armor.
The intent may have been to lessen the impact of those high DCI mages who can't get hit ever.
But the effect is to also nerf current warrior suits along with giving a boost to non-medable armor.
-Galen's player
They are adding things to make poeple use non-meddable armor without nerfing too much the medable armors. The only nerf for those who wear meddable armor will be those with 70 dci. Under HLD effect a 70 DCI will drop to 34,5% instead of dropping to 45% (thats 10 % lower than currently)
As I read it, the HLD effect would be off of the cap, not the actual amount. "Hit lower defense now scales 55% of the players Max Defense Chance Increase."
Going over 45 still seemingly might be of value for castint Divine Fury! But not for any other purpose I can tell.
Does anything else bedies HLD and Divine Fury lower DCI?
-Galen's player
My bad youre right, it is the cap that will be decreased with HLD, looks like it . So a mage capped at 45 % will drop to 20% or so ... worse than I thought lol
Last edited:
Through this exchange I can see what they're going for. Meaning I can see the rationale behind the change.
I think it over-reaches though.
How about:
- Leave HLD as is.
- Leave DCI as is.
- Allow refinement to add 1 to the Physical Resist (only) cap, to a maximum of 75. (Maybe make it 2 for Plate Armor only, still to max of 75.) (Non-medable armor only.)
- Allow refinement to add 5 to the DCI cap to a maximum of, say, 55. (So that while you're wearing that armor your cap is over 45.) (Non-medable armor only.)
I don't know.
I feel like I'm falling into the complexity trap.
-Galen's player
All in with you on this one, plus the HLD changes will make all HLD on weapons and from Prismatic /Mace and Shield Lenses totally useless in Pvm because if HLD lower by 55% of a monster , it will do absolutly nothing to the monster instead of dropping in negative -25% DCI as right now.
from another thread, for all those who for whatever reason don't understand the dci/hld change
Given Bleak's examples above...
If we can still overcap DCI to be HLD proof, then why is HLD changing? What happened to the "Weapon Re-Vamp" of this publish? I was exicited to see the HLD change, but now I am not.
I am going to step away for a bit.
Stayin Alive,
BG
Because, I should think, the HLD change is to allow for HLD potentially to still be meaningful with the new DCI cap for non-medable armor only.
I think it over-reaches big-time myself. While the idea seems to be to allow for Diminishing Returns, and thus few will want to get to the DCI cap of 95, those that do I think will have more substantial advantages than others seem to think.
-Galen's player
Yeah I agree though I guess it depends on how much resists caps lower.
I've been saying for a long time that at least the duration of Curse should be lowered dramatically. it's 2 minutes no matter the amount of Resisting Spells your character has. It should be along the lines of corpse skin duration wise.
You could cut the duration in half (down to 1 min) & that wouldn't phase mages in the least. They would simply Re-curse after attempting 2-3 combos instead of 2x that. I think before you think about reworking curse much more you consider the effect that the new proposed HLD changes are going to have on warriors. In a warrior (has HLD) vs Mage (no HLD) confrontation that warrior is most likely (unless you have over 70% DCI on your suit) going to be hitting 55% of the time or MORE. There is a reason they removed the gargoyle's over cap of 50% (with racial) HCI & a good portion of that reason was because it was OP. Anway, it really depends on how it all pans out on TC as the numbers we've seen are really not set etc.
And you know what, I also believe that is a very reasonable change, and I primarily play mages. It is suprising to me that Curse still lasts 2 minutes at 120 resist. The only thing I would ask for on Curse is the ability to have it not fizzle if recasted on an already cursed target, instead refresh the duration if it is currently applied. I would be willing to give up some of the stat reductions on curse as well for compromise (so dexxers bandages weren't as messed up), mages would still have Clumsy, Feeble, and Weaken for reducing stats, Curse doesn't need to do everything.
Last edited:
Patience is not a virtue. We live strictly by the virtues of UO. Patience is a gift many have not yet received.
a lot of important discussion has taken place in the following thread, and i'd hate for it to be missed in the shuffle.
http://stratics.com/community/threads/dci-cap-clarification-patch-81.294522/page-2#post-2238221
http://stratics.com/community/threads/dci-cap-clarification-patch-81.294522/page-2#post-2238221
don't forget.. with the armor changes, woodland is still going to be probably the most sought right behind leather.
I think the refinements should just encorporate some way of enhancments on other armor with materials granting mods, just like woodland does. Some HCI/DCIs, some damage increases, some mr or hpr, lmc, reflect phys. hell, think otuside the box some if you want, hld and hla, eaters... you name it. Specifically the nonmed armors. i think leather already has its major benefit, being medable.
I think the refinements should just encorporate some way of enhancments on other armor with materials granting mods, just like woodland does. Some HCI/DCIs, some damage increases, some mr or hpr, lmc, reflect phys. hell, think otuside the box some if you want, hld and hla, eaters... you name it. Specifically the nonmed armors. i think leather already has its major benefit, being medable.
Last edited:
Agreed and that is what I thought refinements would be not this confusing system they came up with :/
These properties should be inherent to the special material (ingot/scale type) bonus and not rely on another system. The refinements should allow us to increase these types of properties, at trade-off of another. If the metalsscale armor pieces require armor refinements to get these properties, then then metal/scale armor will always be inferior to wood armor, since wood does not.
The materials bonuses need to be compete against each other. As it stands now, wood is the only material type with bonuses which are not luck and more resists (which wood also has). They need to be on par with one another.
Stayin Alive,
BG
Berethrain
I really enjoyed reading your view.
Personally, I'm not a fan of hidden mods because new and or returning players will not have the hidden information immediately accessible to them. I agree other players will get them up to speed as some of us know how helpful UO players can be.
Instead of a hidden mod I like the idea of a visible mod that is specifically for metal and a visible mod specifically for bone, maybe only attainable via enhancing. I guess one could argue Leather does not have a visable indication about being medable... dang
Man that is a spiral effect.....
I guess we could remove "mage armor" property for imbuing, that would give leather a property that metal, bone and wood armor would not have. That is interesting. Leave the mage armor property on artifacts only, this could create a need for certain artifacts... in fact make all artifacts medable that could bring back some of the need for artifacts.
Please don't flame strike me, I'm just provoking thought
Spell Breaker
I'm not sure, they new player argument just seems weak. What few of them there are, it seems to me if they can figure out skills, the crafting system, and armor/weapon system, they can probably figure out what a bonus mod is whether it shows or not on a piece of armor.
In the entire games history, a lot of players have started with a dagger, a candle, a book, 1k, some terrible armor, maybe a plain weapon, a few regs, depending on the template and eventually a fireworks wand (wtf the fireworks wand has to do with anything IDK).
I think if people have successfully MacGyver'd that into a working account, then this should be cake.
But that's my opinion, and I've been wrong before.
Last edited:
Asking for people to have patience on these boards doesn't always go well
With that said, however, I agree.
Well when you scrap everything that interests people that like balance they tend to get pissed off.Asking for people to have patience on these boards doesn't always go well
With that said, however, I agree.
Last edited:
They didn't remove the over cap according to the new "updated" BS notes.
I like the new weapon updates...
Weapon Revamp
Weapon Update:
Weapon Revamp
Weapon Update:
- Special Moves
- Daisho - Primary: Feint / Secondary: Doublestrike SAME
- Leafblade - Primary: Feint / Secondary: Armor Ignore SAME
- Soul Glaive: Base damage 16-20 / Weapon Speed 4.0 seconds -2 WHOLE DAMAGE SAME SPEED
- Composite Bow, Base damage 16-20 / Weapon Speed 4.0 seconds THE NEW SOUL GLAIVE
- The” Balanced” property can now be found on loot generated two handed weapons. Weapons with this property will be unable to parry or evade. LOL
Last edited:
You know what I would like to see!
Free to Play
Hear me out first! UO would recaputre retired players and entice new players. All free to play accounts can not place a house. To place a house its a 9$ month account upgrade. It gets better! You ccould also place a second house for a 3$ month account upgrade! And we dont stop there.... You can place as many houses as you like on as many shards as you like - 3$ a month per house after the first house (no house cap / no shard cap)
As a bonus for players that have 10 houses on one account will be giving the opportunity to lease the shard transfer house teleporter tile. Tile holds 3 transfers max per month and recharges monthly. Siege and Mugen players can transfer between themselves.
and I'd offer more chargers for accounts with 20, 25 and 30 houses....
I can dream a little
Spell Breaker
True. But that kinda only illustrates even more how overpowered Curse can be as it is easily recast/chained.
But if you want to start "considering" the possible effects of a small HLD buff I can assure you there is nothing at all to worry about.
I mean didnt we buff/increase SDI not too long ago? Apparently nobody has issue with an increase in SDI so what issue can there be with a little possibility of HLD?
Two sides to every debate my friend
What is it about the changes you find complex? Adding?
I suppose the complexity of second grade math can be quite mind blowing to some.
Whatever dude, these changes have had garbage hurled at them by PVPers, PVMers, and roleplayers alike. I'm not wasting my time arguing with That One Cheerleader. There's one in every thread, pretending that even the stupidest idea is great and that he doesn't know what everyone else is so worked up about.What is it about the changes you find complex? Adding?
I suppose the complexity of second grade math can be quite mind blowing to some.
Last edited:
Armor Revamp – Phase 2
Phase two of the Armor Revamp will allow players to apply Refinements to non-medable armor.
Armor Refinements are crafted from refinement components that can be collected from:
I have a question, in former times it was very funny to pick dungeonschest, is it possible to find the refinement componets also on this chest? Then it would be more attractive to pick them again and they get a grade up.
Thanks
Phase two of the Armor Revamp will allow players to apply Refinements to non-medable armor.
Armor Refinements are crafted from refinement components that can be collected from:
- Treasure Maps
- MiB Chests
- Merchant Vessels
- Pirate Vessels
- Town shop container stealables
- Champion Spawn Bosses
I have a question, in former times it was very funny to pick dungeonschest, is it possible to find the refinement componets also on this chest? Then it would be more attractive to pick them again and they get a grade up.
Thanks
You've spent the entire thread complaining about it. If cheerleading now means not overreacting then, guilty.
The idea that these changes (referring specifically to HLD and DCI changes) are bad and that we're over-reacting to them are not incompatible. I'm a little surprised, honestly, to see anyone argue for these changes.
-Galen's player
-Galen's player